Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
( more )
STATION
KGO (ABC) 106
KPIX (CBS) 84
KNTV (NBC) 65
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 61
KTVU (FOX) 47
KBCW (CW) 22
( more )
SPONSOR
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,128 (some duplicates have been removed)
SFGTV
Nov 24, 2012 11:00pm PST
city attorney working with the warriors to come up with a conceptual framework for the business deal which is really looking at the cost to rehabilitate piers 30-32 so it's seismically sound and can support the multi-purpose venue on it, and how the warriors will initially finance that investment and how the city would repay that investment to public property, and jennifer mattes will go over that a little more detail but that conceptual framework is published to this point to support the fiscal feasibility finding and with these projects the port and city staff will pursue policy approvals with a term sheet with fiscal approval. it was the staff's suggestion to separate the two and really the fiscal feasibility finding, again which jennifer will speak to, is necessary to start environmental review, and i think we're all aware of the aggressive schedule that this project is under taking, and we want to make sure at the staff level we are maximizing the time available for environmental review. that's a important component of this project so getting passed fiscal feasibility and starti
SFGTV2
Nov 27, 2012 1:30pm PST
warriors but before i say that i want to continue thanking the people who are very interested in the city of this city, the future of sports, the future of the waterfront and all the neighborhoods that we know that are continuing to want to have a great positive economic future for the city and also create jobs at the same time. supervisor david chiu is here and he and i have talked quite a few time bs this project and what it means to the city. i want to also thank supervisor john avalos and he being a very strong advocate and working together on local hire we have been able to set course and ordinance for city funded projects that i think have been leading the nation in getting local people hired. at the same time i also want to acknowledge supervisor jane kim whose district this arena is being planned for and hopefully constructed on. and take the quality time it takes for all the environmental aspects of this project to be put forth and i -- thank you supervisor. as you know i emphasized job creation in the city being so incredibly important for both the present and the futur
SFGTV
Nov 18, 2012 5:30pm PST
this deal. so the warriors in the city in port work to come up with a conceptual framework. that is not before you today as part of the resolution. i think it is important to take a few minutes to describe the framework that forms the assumption in the feasibility report. the framework says this. the warrior also privately finance all development on piers 30, 32 and seawall lot 30. the city and port will reimburse warriors for agreed upon improvements for city-owned infrastructure. expenditures for improvement are reimbursable expenditures are capped at $120 million. funds for reimbursing those are limited to three sources. let me take each of those three individually. the warriors will privately finance all development. all buildings and improvements, including the multipurpose entertainment venue will be financed by the warriors. estimated cost is $1 billion. they will also finance rehabilitation of piers 30-32 with estimated cost of $120 million. the public open space and maritime amenities and other amenity also be privately financed. that includes as rick mentioned 50% will be publ
SFGTV
Nov 18, 2012 7:00pm PST
. being able to stay here in san francisco. i think having the warriors in the city will bring those types of similar opportunities to students and kids and families that i was able to have and make it more important to have internships with the teams and move their careers along. i think the warriors should be in san francisco as well. i think the opportunity is there for students will be more visible and easily achieved if the warriors are here in san francisco, thank you. >> thank you. >>> madam chair, members of the committee, my name sal lex rosenthal. i'm here with the california music and culture association. as i believe you know, cmac is california's only trade association representing that life interest. we are industry representatives, nightclub owner, artists, fans dedicated to enrichment and preservation of music and culture in california. a 6,000 to 17,000 seat venue will certainly fill a critical void. cmac is hoping this will augment the burgeoning night life and restaurant scene with an influx of new visitors. we also look forward to working with the warriors to make sure
SFGTV
Nov 23, 2012 12:30am PST
proposed arena. also see along the embarkadero on the piers 30-32 site about 135,000 square feet of retail proposed. perhaps the most distinguishing feature you can see on this slide is the fact that over 50% of the site -- in fact, quite a bit more than 50% of the site in the plan that's been proposed, over seven acres of new open public space, that obviously with investment and rehabilitating the piers is what we think is a tremendous new public space opportunity in san francisco. the perimeter on all three sides will have access to the public at all times for pedestrian traffic as well as bicycle traffic. you can see that it actually from the water side on the south steps up to a plus 45 on the north side of the pier. that allows us to do several things. from an experience of those patrons who will be coming to events there it allows us to enter those patrons on the main con course and go down to their seats, or up to their seats, which will greatly experience the fan experience. one of the other things you see is robust maritime opportunities. part of the plan proposes to relocate the fire boat station to this site. the three vessels you see on the north side to the left represent the city's fire boat fleet. there is a placeholder on the north and south side of the pier that is envisioned to accommodate water taxi, ferry landings and private craft in the lower right-hand corner of the site. we are very excited about having this enter into the review so these ideas can be fully vetted. the design will evolve as that takes place. >> in order to do the fiscal feasibility analysis it was important to come up with a broad outline of the proposed business terms for this deal. so the warriors in the city in port work to come up with a conceptual framework. that is not before you today as part of the resolution. i think it is important to take a few minutes to describe the framework that forms the assumption in the feasibility report. the framework says this. the warrior also privately finance all development on piers 30, 32 and seawall lot 30. the city and port will reimburse warriors for agreed upon improvements for city-owned infrastructure. expenditures for improvement are reimbursable expenditures are capped at $120 million. funds for reimbursing those are limited to three sources. let me take each of those three individually. the warriors will privately finance all development. all buildings and improvements, including the multipurpose entertainment venue will be financed by the warriors. estimated cost is $1 billion. they will also finance rehabilitation of piers 30-32 with estimated cost of $120 million. the public open space and maritime amenities and other amenity also be privately financed. that includes as rick mentioned 50% will be public open space, public small craft boat launch on suit side for kayaks. anticipate ferries and water taxis and excursions on the north side and exploring the feasibility of maintaining deep water berth on the east side of the facility. the city will reimburse -- city and port will reimburse warrior for agreed upon improvements the city owned infrastructure capped at 120 million with 13% cost of capital. the cost is estimated to be $120 million but if the conceptual framework creates space that if through cost saves thing rehabilitation of piers is less than 120 the city and warriors may negotiate for other public improvements up to the cap. those would include increased amounts of open space and maritime amenities. there's been a great deal of conversation around this 13% cost of capitol. i want to take a minute to hopefully clearly explain what that means. when you look at other public private partnerships the city has engaged in over the years in which we have asked private partners to improve our infrastructure, there is a cost and rate of return which is often negotiated in those deals. in the hunter's partnership yard the rate of return was 20%. treasure island was 18.5. the lend lease deal proposed for piers 30-32 years ago had a 12.5 rate of return. the 13% rate of return reflects the risk that the warriors are taking in investing in our infrastructure. as i will continue to descrape because the sources are capped and because the sources may never equal 120 million, it is extraordinary risky for them to invest in our infrastructure. the funds for reimbursing costs are limited to three sources. rent credits from piers 30-32, valued at 1.9 million a year. the sale price of seawall lot 30, valued at 30 million a year and new property tax revenue generate bid the yards your's development on both locations through creation of infrastructure financing district, estimated to yield about 5.8 million a year. >> to clarify the sales price is not per year, it is one time. >> one-time. the estimated total value of an infrastructure financing district, the amount that we could bond against for future property tax revenue off these two is approximately estimated to be 50 million. these values were determined by an appraisal that was conducted by the department of real estate with instructions provided by the city and port. there is then -- >> just one second. jennifer, we do have a few questions. supervisor a loss. >> thank you, chair chu. feeling a need to kick the tires a little bit. but looking at my notes here, when we had america's cup before us. >> yep. >> there was a discussion about seawall lot 330, that being a portion to use to help subsidize development, at that time the seawall lot 330 was assessed at 33million, now 30 million. how are we at the difference? we have seen property values increase generally over the past few months. how are we at a lower property value? >> we did three appraisals under the america's cup. the value,ly need help from brad, who i know is here, we did three appraisals piers -- excuse me, the seawall lot and take the value of the america's cup and that was lower than the 30 million that we are valuing it at. we had one that came in at 3 3 million, we had two others that brought an average down to an amount we agreed upon to use for transfer value, lower than 30 million. 30 million that is reflected came out of one appraisal in today's dollars and determined based upon looking at comparable sales -- recent comparable sales. >> right now we have not necessarily an agreement but understanding about 30 million. >> we have an understanding that is the number we will be using with some index for time when the transfer actually occurs. >> when we have term sheet, probably be more set in stone? >> absolutely. that is one of the recurring points i would like to make in the hearing is it is through the term sheet that all financial assumptions i'm presenting will be born -- borne out and backed up with a robust fiscal analysis, that will be back to you this spring. it is that time we will ask you to opine on interest rate and structure. now this is conceptual, it create an outside framework for where this deal is going. >> i know the value of $30 million for seawall lot 330 comes with some assumptions about size, height, usage. what are we assuming? >> assuming current zoning and current conditions, what we asked the appraisers to do is look at highest and best use to maximum the development potential. whether or not as we all know waterfront development in san francisco is contentious and often times the maximum development that is allowed under zoning winds up being something that is a negotiation. so it anticipates -- the appraisal was based on the maximum development on that site. >> include what is kind of height. >> the heights today i believe are 105 feet on that site. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. i also wanted to ask in terms of what supervisor avalos was alluding to, we will see the term sheet that will come before us probably sometime next year. >> that will layout specifically the items. in terms of creating a conceptual framework, the thinking is we are able to put some level of price, some kind of value on these three different reimbursable sources so that they will be able to say reasonably we can get to 120 million to be reimbursed. >> yes. create an early understanding of a cap of costs and a cap of sources. i think one of the things we all struggled with during america's cup was trying to put limits on what the parameters of the deal were, so it felt important to create real structure around this. the numbers need to be fleshed out and fully developed but the structure will remain. there will be these three sources as sources of reimbursement and cap of 120 million. >> thank you. >> a followup question. just a cautionary note. we are looking at the value of seawall lot 330 based on current zoning. you know, if somebody is moving forward, i just want to make sure we are talking about current zoning and if anything is changing of current zoning we would expect a change in value as well. i know we have had projects come before us that require new zoning. i would think that if there is anything that came forward that showed that we would have to do new zoning for seawall lot 330, that would change the value of that land. we would expect that to be reflected in future agreements. not they want to go there but if it ever happened we would expect something greater than what is suggested right now. >> i don't know if the value would change. if final approves include zoning changes. the warriors are proposing -- warriors are paying predevelopment including entitlement and taking the risk. oftentimes the city will be reimbursing private developers for that cost. so there is really shared risks in the entitlements. if the warriors are proposing zoning changes that will come before you, evident in term sheet and move forward through the planning department processes, the costs and risks associated with that would be borne by the warriors up front in the entitlement process. i hear you and i will take that. >> thank you, supervisor. also a clarification. you have the three reimbursable limited services, one, two and three. does the term sheet or does the conceptual framework anticipate we exhaust one before moving to the next, or it is interchangeable? >> it doesn't specifically create a waterfall. but this also sort of gets to the issue of the proposed return on the cost of capitol. it is the city's intention to negotiate to try to repay the warriors for their expenditure as quickly as possible, with as much up -- as large sort of chunks as possible. so the value is something that could come in early as a 30 million credit. the ability to bond against future property tax is a large chunk of money that could be put towards the reimbursing for those infrastructure costs. what the framework anticipates another source of credit in it a lump-sum early to create net present value of what a 66-year lease is and apply toward the expenditures. what i think is important to understand is 120 is a cap. it is a cap that if those expenditures are not met, if they are not needed in order to rehabilitate the substructure, there could be an excess of value in the three buckets, in which kay they would not be exhausted but our goal is to have repayment as quickly as possible. >> thank you. >> some of the -- >> i have a question. >> are you finished answering the question? >> i am. >> we do have another question. supervisor kim? >> thank you. i have a couple questions regarding the buckets. the questions are how to lower impact of 13% interest rate which has created a lot of interest among the members of the public. it is clear the sale price of the seawall can be paid up front. with property tax generated over time, the bond, is that something we can pre-credit it to reduce the 120 million? >> you can't pre-credit it until something is built. one of the things we are looking at and already talking to public finance experts that we engage, tom lockhart, chris lynch and assessor's office, we are engaging at an early stage, is a way to create a strategy that might allow community facilities district to create revenue that you could bond against as early as possible. even before traditionally you can create infrastructure financing district that relies on revenues that are flowing from a completed project. in order to create a revenue stream that you can go out to the market and bond against in order to bring back that chunk of revenue in order to pay back the warriors. so we are -- to your question we are exploring ways to accelerate as much as possible in order to ensure quick repayment to warriors. >> i'm jumping a little ahead to the budget analyst report but it was stated it is possible we could reduce liability in terms of what we would owe 13% on, down to 29.6 million if we were able to use the estimated 34 million from the expected revenues and bond revenues. is that feasible? is that something from the get-go we could take out as to what we would owe 13% interest on? >> that is right. we are attempting to have that remaining number of 30 million be something taken out early. if we can negotiate a value for the 66-year lease at net present value where you look at annual increases, look at what a reset would be, calculate the present value of those -- that rent stream today and give a credit, that would take out the reminder. >> okay. >> that is actually something i want to show. >> right. in the report it said even if you could not do that, that what remained was the 29.6 million, that is 13% annual rate on the 29.6 million is 3.8 million. that would exceed estimated annual fair market rent of 1.9 million. in that case because they have exhausted the three buckets that would be what the city would be committed to giving. nothing beyond that. >> i think that's been one of misconceptions. if warriors have rate of return and more owed, whether because they exceed the 120 million of reimbursable expenditures or because there is a rate continuing to grow that somehow the city is still on the hook. this deal is being crafted to ensure there are only three sources of reimbursable -- by which warriors can get reimbursed for the substructures. it is a cap on total amount spent and cap on sources. >> my last question just on this point is what you had said regarding what if construction costs fall below 120 million. i have seen written the port could then negotiate other improvements to the site that would meet up to the cap. is it possible that actually that we could leave as an option that what we -- our lability to warriors would -- >> i want to be clear to explain why that is in the conceptual framework. because we drafted this at such an early stage we wanted to create space now to figure out if there were improvements. not ones we described that warriors are taking on, not open space in improvements described but if there are additional improvements or ones city wants done to degree that exceed what warriors would do in normal course of development we have carved out ability to negotiate a specific set of improvements with their own particular cost cap within 120. what my commitment is is that would be spelled out by term sheet wha. we are not asking for is a carte blanche that can be negotiated after approvals to fill that bucket. >> i appreciate that. that is one of my concerns, that we could use that. in the unlikely case the construction costs are below 120 million we use it for actually commitments we expected the warriors to already -- like open space. >> that is not the intention. the intention is we were so early that we wanted to create this within 120 and not predetermine we wouldn't use up to the full -- up to what we think is the full value but that would come to you with specificity at term sheet stage. what it is and what it is costing. that would be something for you to opine on. >> thank you. >> i think some of misunderstandings and misconceptions have to do with some belief the city is giving cash or loan of money or some sort of guaranteed repayment or return. that is not true. what i have been trying to articulate is regardless of the cost of the repair, the reimbursement to warriors is capped at 120 million from three sources we have just discussed. our current estimate of the value of these three sources is less than 120 million. the port really has a liability in the pier substructure, in piers 30-32 in form of crumbling pier. warriors have agreed to repair it with their money at their risk. what it means is under the current proposal, warriors do not get a return of their investment based on our current estimates of the value of these three sources. nevermind a return on their investment. if i can have the overhead. thank you. not that one. the light one. this is a pretty simple worksheet that we work with our consultants eps to present that really looks at the qualified cost and sources for reimbursement. taking out this notion is not an interest rate but cost of capital but taking out the cost of capitol, the value if you look at the value of the three sources of reimbursement and look at them in two ways, there's the purchase credit for the seawall lot, projected isd bond, close to 55.5 million. the slight variable if you look at the fee value. if we could sell 3032, the appraiser looked at if we could sell 3032 what would the value be. 30 million. based upon calculations of what the net present value of the lease would be on 3032, that is 31 million. you see the three sources don't equal 120 million. so i think the conversation on 13% has over shadowed the notion that we don't get to it under the present value of the three. >> jennifer, i want to clarify. at the current state we anticipate we would need potentially 120 million to be able to rehabilitate piers 30, 32, primarily substructure in order to support anything on top of it. what conceptual framework is laying out is saying no matter what the cost is even if it is higher than 120 million on piers 3032, the city is only liable for reimbursing maximum of 120 million period. not only are we limited to 120 million reimbursement cap but further limited to pay back that cap with these three sources. even if those three sources don't necessarily add up to 120 million, we are only limited to using those three buckets to repay it. ris subpoenaing on warriors. if what ends up being the value is not quite 120 million. >> that's correct. >> okay. thanks. >> key provisions is the concept -- separate concept that we may agree on other improvements by warriors and other mechanisms, codified in the term sheet. one exciting example is relocation of station 35 from piers 22 down to piers 30, 32 and moving fire boats and stakes. i have assistant chief ken lombardi to say a few words about this opportunity. >> assistant chief lombardi with the san francisco fire department. the fire department has been looking at our facility at pier 22.5 for quite sometime as the piers behind have become dilapidated. most will notice as you are walking down embarkadero near the fire boats. we are looking at a project a year now where they will rebuild that and build a new pier out the back. it will be significant cost out of our bond money passed in 2010 by citizens of san francisco for emergency safety and earthquake safety and emergency response that a lot of our fire houses are becoming older and need a lot of work and not seismickly safe. as warriors came about with this project they approached us, as this is a block away . this would create a great opportunity for fire department and citizens if we move this, have a state-of-the-art fire house that could house three fire boats. we have two, a new one coming at the end of 2013. currently we can't tie it up at the current facility. like i say we were going to do a new project. this is another opportunity. by putting this together would create less bay fill and open the area, the dilapidated piers could be taken down at that point. the old historic fire house would stay. everything behind it would open the view for citizens and people in the neighborhood. questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >>> other provisions would be par yours pay the fees. port would receive a transfer fee, 1% on the sales of all condos developed there. it marks early on commitment to create funding stream to pay for neighborhood quality of life services. now fiscal feasibility. there are five requirements of fiscal feasible. looks at direct and indirect economic benefits of project, proposed construction costs, proposed funding, operation and maintenance costs and proposal to use public debt. in fiscal feasibility report and numbers we generated with help of eps and barrett, we did use conservative assumptions. if you have questions about the number of assumptions, i have jim mussbach and richard burton from eps to talk through them. first the economic benefits. there are two sources. some is annual unrestricted general fund and other is dedicated or unrestricted revenue. approximately 12 million in annual unrestricted general fund revenue from sources you see in this chart expected from the development at the two sites. the initial number that was generated in fiscal feasibility report used pay roll tax. we will have gross receipts tax by the time arena is completed. the number has been adjust someday what to account for gross receipts tax. the annual unrestricted general fund is $12 million. dedicated or restricted is additional $5.2 million. one-time revenues will be over 50 million for various impact fees. gross receipts and transfer tax from sale of seawall lot 330. >> can i ask in terms of annual general fund revenue, the 12 million you show on slide 13 that shows property tax funding that would come in, is this net of the proposed isd or -- >> it is not. thank you for pointing that out. what you have to assume is the first 30 years that five million should be taken off the annual general fund revenues because that would be dedicated to repaying the isd. that would be issued in order to repay the warriors for the substructure costs. >> thanks. >> thank you for that. >> so the one-time revenues include the jobs housing linkage, housing, child care, impact and ease -- east sea, that is all include thered that number. economic benefits include permanent employment, construction employment and annual economic spend. total direct jobs anticipated to be created and maintained is 107,000 jobs. over 200,000 full time equivalent leapt jobs from the three-year period construction time of this project. total of 282 million in annual economic impact. what is important is we adjusted to make sure these were net impacts. warriors are already located in the bay. we spent a great deal of time trying to net out the current economic benefits from having them in
SFGTV
Nov 18, 2012 11:00am PST
at the latest est session which was quality of life because one of the negotiators of the warriors sat at our table and had input and was very vocal and didn't identify herself with the warriors until the entire thing was over, and people freaked out. i request that there be a rule and enforced on all negotiations, particularly the golden state warriors that in the case the port, owd and particularly the warriors not participate as members of the public, and wear big badges saying who they are because people hide behind anonymity and i know because i of around the block oweb -- i don't know the golden state warriors but the know the port and oweb but i'm unusual and most are true civilians and it's unfair for them to have to argue from a person from one of these groups when you're soliciting public input. either shut the hell up and/or identify yourself and this came out directly from the last session of the input on 32-32 because the warriors went way over the line. thank you. >> okay. any further public comment? okay. >> item four is executive session. >> so moved. >> second. >> we a
SFGTV
Nov 14, 2012 1:00pm PST
ticket holders for the golden state warriors. we question that you look at the project and get it going. also a retired union man so definitely looking forward to it being built and getting jobs to union families in san francisco. also we need to have the project done so if everybody has been following the warriors the time this project is done we will be raising a world championship banner. let's get it done. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to speak behalf of chinese citizen alliance. and want to keep it short. so i live in san francisco for many years. i love this city. it think it is important for san francisco to have its team. i heard golden state warriors was once played in san francisco. i think it is time to bring them back home. in addition, i think it is a good idea to use the portland because otherwise it would be unused. finally good for small business and opportunities for collecting tax revenue. therefore i really hope we can move forward with this project. thank you. please hold the microphone to you. >> supervisors, may i ask -- have permission to be h
SFGTV
Nov 15, 2012 11:00pm PST
the city are linked to the totality of uses at arena. but the warriors won't be able to finance and won't have any desire to build an arena that is not -- that does not make economic sense for them. the ability -- their willingness to build an arena is dependent on having that arena be a viable economic engine in order to recoup the billion dollars that it is going to cost to build that facility. so i think obviously we will be providing more detailed information to the budget analyst and to the decision-makers and cf ac in months to come. the reinforcing mechanism, the warrior also not invest a billion in something that isn't going to yield the economic activity that justifis that. >> thank you. supervisor kym? >> i want to ask you to come up again. given kind of a lot of concerns i raised in the neighborhood around the speed which this process is going, i get it with the fiscal feasibility. this initiates the process. the board is asking if this is fiscally feasible. the substantive part is with the term sheet and substantive eir. i'm hoping to get a commitment from city on ensuri
SFGTV
Nov 20, 2012 12:00pm PST
we pursued the warriors. we knew we had an entity there to help us demonstrate the things we talked about when pursuing them, local hire, jobs for people, vendors respective of our small businesses, a waterfront design sensitive to the views and the environment that we want to have, and a great, great addition to our economy in the city for years and years to come, so it is with great pride that we make this announcement because many of the people in this room are looking for that opportunity from all walks of life, from every community in san francisco they see this as a city wide projected, not just on the waterfront. it's everybody's future. everybody has to be heard and i know that even this weekend there was a telephonic ability to talk to people online and the telephone. there were over 4,000 people that engaged themselves with a conversation and the warriors and about what this project meant. it's incredible. i also want to give a shout out to the port and i know monique is here and they're working hard with our team and continuing this ongoing dialogue and we will have more
SFGTV
Nov 24, 2012 4:00am PST
fixed program so we could ask the questions before the city spends a lot, or the warriors spend a lot of money on the eir and entitlement process. we appreciate the fact the scoping meeting has been moved to mid-january and the port approved moving the term sheets to later on. the issue is to give the cac the opportunity to address the actually issues not on a nimby and cheerleader basis but on the fact of the deal. we will appreciate your help getting there, thank you. >> thank you. may call a few more names. ramon hernandez, rosenthal, rhene, tony. >> i'm ron miguel i'm a member of the piers 30, 32 cac. i agree and disagree with our chair, katy, who has by the way been doing a very excellent job under sometimes exasperating circumstances. the cac has been nothing other than a public information office up to this point. i have talked to katy and others. i think there is pretty much agreement we should start operating as the cac, particularly by january. i firmly believe we will. to get to the fiscal feasibility study perhaps because of my background with the planning commission and b
SFGTV
Nov 28, 2012 10:00am PST
if the value would change. if final approves include zoning changes. the warriors are proposing -- warriors are paying predevelopment including entitlement and taking the risk. oftentimes the city will be reimbursing private developers for that cost. so there is really shared risks in the entitlements. if the warriors are proposing zoning changes that will come before you, evident in term sheet and move forward through the planning department processes, the costs and risks associated with that would be borne by the warriors up front in the entitlement process. i hear you and i will take that. >> thank you, supervisor. also a clarification. you have the three reimbursable limited services, one, two and three. does the term sheet or does the conceptual framework anticipate we exhaust one before moving to the next, or it is interchangeable? >> it doesn't specifically create a waterfall. but this also sort of gets to the issue of the proposed return on the cost of capitol. it is the city's intention to negotiate to try to repay the warriors for their expenditure as quickly as possib
SFGTV
Nov 28, 2012 11:00pm PST
and i'd like to express my concerns about the rapid * pace at which this process for the warriors project has been moving. it's very disturbing and i know it's disturbing to my neighbors as well, to the people that i've spoken to. the neighbors in my area told me they haven't had a chance to look at it. they haven't heard about it. i'm hearing all kinds of different things. and i think that it's very important that we're involved with this because truly it will affect our quality of life. our ability to work, our ability to live, our ability to enjoy our homes will be compromised by the traffic and the changes that will happen potentially. i'm respectfully requesting that we slow this process down so that people have the ability to put in the input that needs to be done. thank you very much. >> thank you. >>> my name is dave hartzell, i live on one of the beautiful corridors that was on the pretty picture. the person before me was more articulate than i, but i would also like to emphasize the process is going much quicker than any other project of its kind. and that when you go in a hurry
SFGTV
Nov 24, 2012 10:00pm PST
32-32 because the warriors went way over the line. thank you. >> okay. any further public comment? okay. >> item four is executive session. >> so moved. >> second. >> we are in executive session. (recess). (executive session). >> are you guys ready? okay. >> roll call. commissioner. >> present. >> commissioner. >> here. >> commissioner. >> here. >> commissioner. >> here. >> item two approval of minutes for october 23, 2012 meeting with a minor correction. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> number three public comment on executive session, sue hester . >> sue hester. i didn't identify myself on there, but i have attended all of the public workshops for public input on pier 30-32 and i would ask this commission and the staff to direct everyone who is a negotiating party to when they attend these public meetings to shut up and identify themselves. there was a lot of furor at my table at the latest session which was quality of life because one of the warrior's negotiators sat at our table and had input, and was very vocal, and didn't identify herself as a warriors unt
SFGTV
Nov 24, 2012 2:30am PST
the pier multipurpose venue usable for public uses and other events such as convention, warriors home games, cultural events, family shows and performing arts and other uses including public space. retail and related parking facilities and develop on seawall lot 330 residential, hotel and/or retail uses and accessory parking in fiscally feasible and responsible under code 29 urging city and port officials to make evaluating and proposed project among its highest priorities and to take all appropriate steps to further environmental review of the proposed project. >> thank you very much. on this item we do have a number of presenters. we first will have jennifer, from the office of economic and workforce development who will give a presentation. after jennifer completes her presentation, we will have monique morrier, offering her comments and to the budget analyst report on this item. before we begin, just for folks who are in the overflow room, we have an overflow room, room 263 that is available. if there are members of the public who are in that room that wish to speak during pu
SFGTV2
Nov 19, 2012 3:30pm PST
warriors have reached out to event promoters in the area in order to start talking to them about some of the specifics around the design. it is their intention not to have this facility be designated to one particular promoter, but it had to be an open house that all promoters could book actsv and shows into. in addition, we have reached out to the entertainment commission to start working with them and through them to talk to folks that are interested in using the facility, not just the main [speaker not understood] of the a rectionverctiontion a but also the smaller multi-purpose room and the outdoor space on a year round basis. as you'll see in the attachment to the conceptual framework as part of the feasibility report where it talks about that number of events over the course of a year, the vision is really a variety of events of different sizes. the intention is to design an arena that can really be collapsed to host shows and events that are -- that attract a wide range of audience and different size audiences. so, that means really reaching out to the full breadth of the entertai
SFGTV
Nov 27, 2012 10:00am PST
going to be a great venue for the warriors, it's going to be used for entertainment -- i shouldn't say entertainment because it could be [speaker not understood]. an awful lot, that is going to be a real key purpose of the stadium. i know when the cac was put together there was no one from the entertainment industry on the cac which i thought was -- i know was a complete oversight, it wasn't intentional. i know you assured me that [speaker not understood] in the community would be involved in the planning process. i want to make sure we're continuing to really take into account the fact this is an entertainment venue. i think that community can have a huge contribution in making sure that it is successful both in terms of design, working with the surrounding neighborhood. i want to see if we can get a little update on that. >> thank you. supervisor wiener, we very much take seriously your questions and the need to integrate the entertainment and night life community into the design and programming and thoughts around this arena are critical to its success. the warriors have reached
SFGTV
Nov 20, 2012 10:00am PST
great for the people of the city of san francisco, not just to see the warriors, but other entertainment that will go on in this venue. i tell you, it will be a real icon of a place as time goes by. we all will be proud of it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kranowitz. >>> good afternoon, [speaker not understood], local 22. first i just want to say the carpenters union are in favor of this project for the following reasons. we believe that these proposed arena is [speaker not understood] for the city and san francisco. because it will generate revenue and will create 3600 local constituent jobs and thousands of permanent jobs. and you were talking about sports also. san francisco has had great success with [speaker not understood]. notably hosting the world cup and [speaker not understood] generated by [speaker not understood]. that's going to happen also with the warriors arena. it's going to generate a lot of money. similar to [speaker not understood], the proposed arena is indicated an area easily accessible by public transit. we hear about the bart [speaker not understood]
SFGTV
Nov 23, 2012 11:00am PST
about her organization's ongoing support and commitment to working with the warriors as the proposal moves forward. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. so, at this time we'll open up for public comment. >> supervisor kim, can i just ask, ms. matts, can i just ask if you could summarize the public benefits? i know we mentioned the benefits of the port. [speaker not understood] went over those. i think from the budget committee's discussion, i think it was last week, 5,000 full-time jobs, about 2800 -- 5,000 temporary jobs and 2800 permitted jobs and about $80 million annually from visitor spending to the city. * permanent also mentioned by the fire department, fire boat station and 7 acres of public open space. was there anything else that's left out of those public benefits from the development? >> i do think it's important about the 7 acres of open space, for commitment of the warriors to maintain all of that open space. in addition, the three sides of the pier that would be active for maritime use really not only forward the port's goals of having continued maritime access, but reall
SFGTV
Nov 17, 2012 11:30pm PST
warriors tickets. we request there is nothing wrong to put it front of the citizenry and with respectful deliberation. thank you. >> thank you. >> sue hester i got my feet wet in this area by participating in the giants project, and that went on for several years, and the giants showed us all how it is done. they worked with the community, the community of their neighbors, the broader community of the city. the eir took a couple of years at the port and the planning commission, the board of supervisors, and this was after they were on the ballot twice, and there was a huge discussion. instead we have a cooked deal. i don't know how familiar you are with what you're voting on. you are voting on a schedule, and you're voting on rejecting the eir alternatives. the study that you have before you, and there are many studies, the conceptual framework says the port rejects out of hand at the start of the process any alternative site especially any site north of the -- north of here, or south of here. north of here is fully developed. no one in their right mind is proposing an arena north of the
SFGTV
Nov 25, 2012 12:00pm PST
organization from everyone who made the presentations for the warriors and the court and omd and every meeting that the cac has, so i would ask you what are you voting on? additionally i just want to say there are no rendering that we have seen anything about the -- how the stadium and the arena looks at from where people live coming up on the embarcadero on the west side and they are planning on a mounding and a mounding is going to affect people's views of the bridge, people's views of the waterfront, so we are going much, much too fast, and what are you voting on folks? you should ask your staff. what scheduling -- what assumptions you're voting on for alternative sites? thank you. >> is there any further public comment? i hope it up now for comments and questions from the commissioners. >> if you could -- brad and both of you come back up. i think one of the things i appreciate the presentations and comments that everyone has made. this i think several of the speakers alluded to and one of the great things about san francisco there is so much participation in everything, and you bo
SFGTV
Nov 15, 2012 11:30pm PST
and warriors folks are excited about is the project is fiscally feasible. we needed to know that before we did that. the thing is one of the unsung community heros to get us to do that is abu, from bay view hunter's point. what is historic is abu has pushed to advance community opportunity, particularly in southeast sector bay view hunter's point. abu stepped up and signed onto a historic letter of commitment to do local hiring, work with labor, community, the warriors, the developer, the contractor and i think we got what we need as far as fiscal feasibility. i hear some kind of concern to get more informations or more research. that's going to happen. this is a long process. this is day one. do i not want to see a delay face supervisors because there is such incredible momentum to take local hiring, come together with community groups that sign the letter of commitment with the mayor, with our labor partners and with the warriors and folks doing this web core and hunt that are building it. i just actually didn't realize the delay was a possibility. it kind of maybe blunted enth
SFGTV
Nov 24, 2012 4:30am PST
state warriors fan. reck said about this project because i want to see the team in our city. i really hope you guys push this project forward, thanks. >> thank you. i see no other -- one more. after the other members of the public who have not spoken, please do line up against the wall. >> thank you, supervisors, tom king once more. i support the project but i do have concerns. the presentation was very well done. i didn't hear anything about the residents living close to proposal site. will there be a study to examine this impact? that said revenue alsoing increase as visiting team also stay in san francisco perhaps two to three nights, especially with east coast teams and travel days. also nba teams book entire floors of hotels for security reasons. pro sports teams are owned by billionaires, so please be cautious with the final contract. i think two people should be more involved in the decision. one is harvey rose, a superb budget analyst. the other is a san francisco resident named gund. he is very charitable. he and his family own the cleveland team. they would have detai
SFGTV
Nov 15, 2012 10:00pm PST
revenue in order to pay back the warriors. so we are -- to your question we are exploring ways to accelerate as much as possible in order to ensure quick repayment to warriors. >> i'm jumping a little ahead to the budget analyst report but it was stated it is possible we could reduce liability in terms of what we would owe 13% on, down to 29.6 million if we were able to use the estimated 34 million from the expected revenues and bond revenues. is that feasible? is that something from the get-go we could take out as to what we would owe 13% interest on? >> that is right. we are attempting to have that remaining number of 30 million be something taken out early. if we can negotiate a value for the 66-year lease at net present value where you look at annual increases, look at what a reset would be, calculate the present value of those -- that rent stream today and give a credit, that would take out the reminder. >> okay. >> that is actually something i want to show. >> right. in the report it said even if you could not do that, that what remained was the 29.6 million, that is 13% ann
SFGTV
Nov 14, 2012 7:30pm PST
rehabilitation of the property at pier 30, 32, multipurpose arena for golden state warrior games and events. public open space. maritime use, retail and related parking. development on seawall lot 330 of residential hotel and retail use and 53.8 million. direct ongoing annual financial benefits between 9.8 million and slightly over ten million. undetermined indirect benefits from grocery receipts tax revenue up to 120 million as you have heard capped in private expenditures, rehabilitation of 3032, reimbursement by port of those private construction expenditures. for use of 66 years of credits for pier 3032, valued at 1,970,000 per year. you also heard when i talked about 120 million that does include 13% return to gsw on the reimbursement of construction costs, non reimbursement construction costs. transfer of seawall lot 330 from port of gsw bay and 34 million and four years of general fund property tax revenues, used to repay a 60 million ifd bond. no new ongoing maintenance cost for the port. undetermined maintenance costs for which funding options are explored by the office of economic
SFGTV
Nov 17, 2012 3:00am PST
commitments we expected the warriors to already -- like open space. >> that is not the intention. the intention is we were so early that we wanted to create this within 120 and not predetermine we wouldn't use up to the full -- up to what we think is the full value but that would come to you with specificity at term sheet stage. what it is and what it is costing. that would be something for you to opine on. >> thank you. >> i think some of misunderstandings and misconceptions have to do with some belief the city is giving cash or loan of money or some sort of guaranteed repayment or return. that is not true. what i have been trying to articulate is regardless of the cost of the repair, the reimbursement to warriors is capped at 120 million from three sources we have just discussed. our current estimate of the value of these three sources is less than 120 million. the port really has a liability in the pier substructure, in piers 30-32 in form of crumbling pier. warriors have agreed to repair it with their money at their risk. what it means is under the current proposal, warriors do no
SFGTV
Nov 18, 2012 6:30pm PST
fiscal impacts of the proposed development, gsw assumed 205 events per year, including 50 warrior games at proposed multiuse arena with total of attendance of 2 million annually. that is shown in table three on page 19 of our report. this report that economic viability of proposed arena depends on hosting a variety of events in addition to golden state warrior games. we would be happy by to respond to questions the committee might have. >> thank you. are there any questions to the budget analyst at this time? if not -- just to jennifer, are there any other departments planning to speak? no, okay. we will opening for public comment soon. before we do that i did want to allow for the chair of the pier 3032 cac speak, katy ladell. because you are not a member of the san francisco staff you are required to be under public comment period so two minutes is the time we do have. i allow you to speak up to two minutes. of course if you can i think representing what entire cac's perspective with, where there is distinction and view. also share that. >> thank you. thank you supervisor kim fo
SFGTV
Nov 25, 2012 12:00am PST
capital that the warriors will have to go out and borrow in order to invest in our public infrastructure. the city uses its balance sheet and its ability to publicly finance infrastructure for things like roads and parks and a hospital and a new public safety building, and laqueena honda and mos conia expansion and the cruise ship terminal. we invest in our public infrastructure all the time and we do it on things that benefit the public broadly. when we have opportunities to allow a public -- to allow a private partner to take the risk of infrastructure improvements and then be repaid through the value that they create we protect our -- we protect our public finance tools for things that only government can fund, and we think that continuing a model that's really been perfected under redevelopment in which the value that is created is reinvested to pay back our private partners for the infrastructure that they pay for is a good model to try to emulate on a specific case by case basis, and it is one that has been used with success in some variety of way, in mission bay, on
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,128 (some duplicates have been removed)